Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Rajak vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 11971 of 2022
(RAJESH RAJAK Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 03-02-2023
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sahu-Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Yogesh Dhande-Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
Heard on I.A.No. 24050/2022 an application under Section 389(1) of the
Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant- Rajesh Rajak
arising out of judgment dated 10/12/2022 delivered in Special Case No. 32/19
passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act ),Umaria.
The appellant has been convicted under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(2)(n)
of IPC and under Sections 5(L)(6) and 5(J) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and
sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 10 years
and fine of Rs.500/-, RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, RI for 20 years and
fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 500/- respectively, with
default stipulations.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution story,
the appellant himself lodged a report in the Police Station-Indwar on 23-08-2019
that his married wife, who was on the family way and having pregnancy of 7
months died during treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all
prosecution witnesses have turned hostile. The evidence on record shows that
the victim solemnised marriage with the appellant.
Attention of this Court is drawn on paragraph-11 of the judgment
wherein, the court below have considered the testimony of mother of the victim
(PW-7). The said witness in paragraph-8 of cross-examination admitted that
when the marriage of appellant with the deceased was solemnized, the victim
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 2/4/2023
1:29:35 PM
was aged about 19-20 years.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no ocular evidence
which proves the case. No case is made out for attracting Section 363 and 366-
A of IPC. The court below in paragraph-57 of the judgment has given a finding
that the date of marriage is not established. In this view of the matter, the court
below was not justified in holding the appellant as guilty for committing offence
under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC. By no stretch of imagination, a husband can be
held guilty for committing rape on his wife in absence of any evidence. The final
hearing of this appeal will take time.Thus, remaining jail sentence of the
appellant may be suspended.
Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer on the basis of
objection.
We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Considering the factual backdrop and aforesaid stand of the parties,
without expressing any conclusive opinion on the merits of the case, we deem it
proper to suspend the remaining jail sentence of appellant. Accordingly,
I.A.No. 24050/2022 is allowed.
Subject to depositing the fine amount (if not already deposited), the
remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended and it is directed
that on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty
Thousand Only) along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellant- Rajesh Rajak be released on bail
with a further direction to remain present before the Trial Court, Umaria on
28/04/2023 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the trial Court in this
regard during the pendency of this appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 2/4/2023
1:29:35 PM
Certified copy as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (AMAR NATH (KESHARWANI))
JUDGE JUDGE
PG
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PARMESHWAR
GOPE
Signing time: 2/4/2023
1:29:35 PM
